From Dave Boardman
Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Yes, the facts to speak for themselves. The emissions from car exhausts are responsible for more deaths than road accidents, according to World Health Organisation (WHO) research across France, Austria and Switzerland.

The research found that one third of all harmful particulate air pollution was caused by road transport, and that long term exposure to pollution caused an estimated 21,000 premature deaths a year across the three countries.

This is far higher than the 9,947 who died that year as a result of road accidents.

Those who oppose smoking should naturally use cars less and campaign for general reduction of car use, it would be hypocritical not to... wouldn't it?

And we haven't yet got onto the non smokers who think aviation is acceptable!

I can live with the smoking ban, I just can't be doing with hypocrits

From Myra James
Wednesday, 17 October 2007

Dave, you’ve hit the nail on the head. Although a non-smoker, I consider the keenness of government and MPs to impose a total ban on smoking in public places an example of picking on an easy target. Will they be as quick to act on today’s report drawing attention to the impact of sedentary lifestyles (including the habit of driving everywhere) on growing obesity and another recent one recommending 20mph speed limits in all built up areas to reduce road deaths? Probably not, because of the unholy row that breaks out every time there is the slightest interference with motorists’ desire to drive and park at will. And what will Calderdale Council be able to come up with in response to the Air Quality Management Area in place along the A646 through our town? Does anyone really care that our air has been declared unbreathable?

From Jim Band
Thursday, 18 October 2007

Opposing smoking (in public places!) and campaigning against pollution from motors vehicles are not mutually exclusive standpoints Dave.

Are the smokers who think aviation is acceptable really any worse than the non-smokers?! if you believe in reducing air traffic that us. Shouldn't the focus simply be on converting all those who don't get it, rather than picking on one particular group?

Sorry, but this seems like a petty rant that hasn't been very well thought out.

And Myra, simply because implementing the smoking ban was easy for the government, does not mean they should have tackled a more difficult target instead. It remains a positive step forward for society. And really, has the air actually been declared "unbreathable"? By who? I can't say that I've noticed anyone lying dead on Market Street as a result of asphyxiation.

As far as tackling obesity and road deaths in built up areas. Who do you think has proposed the 20mph limit?

And try to remember that the smoking ban hasn't stopped people smoking entirely, only in public places, where those who choose not to smoke no longer have to risk serious illness through passive smoking.

From Gideon Foster
Friday, 19 October 2007

Please correct me if i am wrong , but as i read Dave's post he was making a point about hypocrisy rather than having a "petty rant".

Cigarette smoke , car exhaust fumes and air travel all cause pollution which can affect another persons health .
Therefore , is it not hypocritical for someone to stand shouting from the rooftops about the damage passive smoking is doing to their health if they then jump in a car and pollute the atmosphere for other people.

Most intelligent smokers and non-smokers will agree it is a positive step for society, but smokers were also an easy target and it would be nice to see other polluters pursued with the same vigour !

From Myra James
Friday, 19 October 2007

Jim, I confess to exaggerating somewhat in declaring the air “unbreathable” – but it is pretty rank at times and is over EU limits in various pollutants and the council is required to come up with an action plan to deal with it. And yes, we are set to get a 20mph limit in the town centre, but the report I referred to proposed 20mph in all built up areas and we await government, local authority and other responses to that suggestion. I don’t entirely oppose the smoking ban, but wouldn’t have objected to retention of separate smoking rooms in suitably licensed pubs. Sadly what we have now is more and more pubs heating their outdoor areas – not really in keeping with targets to reduce energy consumption and tackle climate change.

From Jim Band
Friday, 19 October 2007

Myra, many local authorities have implemented a 20mph limit in built up and residential areas. Just not here, not yet. North Lanarkshire has even introduced this into all residential areas.

"Rank" and "unbreathable" and even "over EU limits" are hardly cold hard facts. The council has to address this issue of air pollution, and they surely will, in time. Remember that the ban on smoking took years from the initial legislation being passed to becoming implemented. Separate smoking rooms is a good idea, but it fails to recognise the main purpose of the legislation, which is to protect the rights of staff to a safe working environment.

Sorry Gideon, but Dave said that "Those who oppose smoking should naturally use cars less and campaign for general reduction of car use..." and I disagree, everyone should do that. Could Dave simply be indirectly criticising the smoking ban here? After all he "can live with the smoking ban", which sounds very far from supportive of it.

Dave works for the Trades Club, who do not seem to favour the smoking ban. The Trades website apologises for the ban and blames the "nanny state government". Clearly the Trades are unconcerned about the health risks which their staff would face from passive smoking, which is odd given that that socialism was borne out of demands for and the protection of worker's rights.

Apologies again Gideon, I lost track there. Did you say something about hypocrisy?!

From Rev Tony Buglass
Friday, 19 October 2007

Gideon asks "is it not hypocritical for someone to stand shouting from the rooftops about the damage passive smoking is doing to their health if they then jump in a car and pollute the atmosphere for other people?"

It's not quite as simple as that, is it? Smoking is a matter of personal choice, but cannot be said to be a necessity (apart from the perspective of the addict, of course). Some form of transport is necessary for most of us, in order to function. For many, that has to be a car, given that public transport doesn't adequately meet our needs. Even if we are able to go by bus or train, that includes the burning of fuel and production of exhaust. If we try to minimise our pollution, and use the car/bus/train as efficiently as possible, that is probably the best that can be achieved. I don't see there is any comparison between that and deliberately and unnecessarily producing toxic pollutants in social spaces.

So, no, I disagree. Hypocrisy is too strong a word. You're not comparing like with like.

From Gideon Foster
Saturday, 20 October 2007

Rev.Tony you say "some form of transport is necessary for most of us to function" which I accept is true as I am certainly guilty of this myself ,however,the fact is traffic pollution does also cause premature death and health problems and most of us drive or use transport of one form or another including I would guess the very MP's who voted in this legislation. I am sorry if you think hypocrisy is too strong a word but I don't see how you can stand up and complain about the damage to your health from passive smoking when your actions cause harm to others , even if it is as a result of a necessary evil!

Jim, I agree everyone should campaign for a general reduction in car use ,however, as Rev.Tony states the alternative of public transport is just not good enough at present for people to have confidence in it.

I personally gave up trying to rely on trains a long time ago to get to Manchester and now only use them if I am going to London.

Despite being a smoker I also agree with you that the Trades club is wrong in opposing the ban as smokers do not have an argument, but I do believe they are right about this "nanny state" government with its holier than thou attitude in telling us how we should live our lives. Judging by the news coming from its media department (the BBC) recently if you enjoy a few pints or have a slightly high body mass index you look like being the next targets !

From Rev Tony Buglass
Sunday, 21 October 2007

Gideon, my reasoning is that I may wish we were not polluting our environment with fuel exhausts, but I am largely powerless to do anything about that except minimise my use of fossil fuels. Those who pollute our environment with what would otherwise be self-inflicted carcinogens generally do so by choice, and with no necessity (other then the compulsion of the already-addicted). As I said, you're not comparing like with like, and seeking to apply an equation which is not nuanced enough. In that context, hypocrisy is simply too strong a word.

* * * * *

A different issue to my last comment - the use of such terms as "nanny state" in arguments about public policy. It always makes me uncomfortable, because it seems to be setting up a case without argument, but by implying that no reasonable person would agree with it. I always want to challenge it, simply because it suggests to me that something is being hidden behind the rhetoric.

In this case, it is about the right of the government to intervene and restrict the right of the greedy to eat, drink, or smoke themselves to death. On the TV news this week, a very fat and self-righteous man was shown saying "If folk want to kill themselves with food, that's their concern." Well, no it isn't, child. Classic "me-centred" lack of concern for anybody else - like the loved ones left grieving, the work-force deprived of skills, the community at large supporting the ill through tax and health-care, etc. Rights always come with responsibilities. Such selfish individualism is unacceptable.

Perhaps instead of "state" we should use the word "community" and suggest that there is an appropriate level of care and intervention to shepherd those who are too immature to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

From Jim Band
Monday, 22 October 2007

Well put Rev.Tony.

What you've said has thrown another problem I have with Dave's opener into sharp relief.

If Dave agrees with the Trades that we are victims of a nanny state, how does he expect the government to reduce air pollution and harmful emissions without being criticised further for taking action which impinges on personal choice?

From Gideon Foster
Monday, 22 October 2007

Rev.Tony / Jim

The point I am trying to get across is the overbearing extent to which we are subjected to this barrage of lifestyle advice from the government which I believe is intrusive. Of course there will always be people in society who need to be protected from themselves, but the average person of average intelligence does not need telling that if you eat too much and don't exercise you will get fat.

At the end of the day are these grand media announcements actually having the desired effect? Or is it just a way of a government not doing a lot trying to give a different impression and cover up its failings!

You say quite rightly, there should be an "appropriate level of care and intervention to shepherd those who are too immature to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions" but by communicating this to the population as a whole, in the way that it does this government comes across as over intrusive.

Perhaps if the government were to concentrate on real issues like reducing pollution, by providing an efficient public transport system people could rely on, it may result in people arriving home after a day at work feeling relaxed enough to visit a gym rather than reaching for the bottle having spent hours in a traffic jam?

From Tim B
Monday, 22 October 2007

"A different issue to my last comment - the use of such terms as "nanny state" in arguments about public policy. It always makes me uncomfortable, because it seems to be setting up a case without argument, but by implying that no reasonable person would agree with it. I always want to challenge it, simply because it suggests to me that something is being hidden behind the rhetoric."

The same thing applies in my mind to the phrases 'political correctness' and 'do-gooders'. The argument is debased by using these words and it sounds like the person wants to carry on doing what they want to without thought for anyone else's opinions, thoughts or feelings. (What's wrong with doing good anyway?)

Having said that, these phrases rarely occur on the Hebweb Forum - if you want to find some really overused phrases with associated narrow thinking try the Halifax Courier website comments. Ouch.

From Jim Band
Monday, 22 October 2007

Gideon,

Governments having been giving lifestyle advice for aeons! Public Information Films etc on everything from the benefits of regular exercise to the risks of contracting HIV through unprotected sex. This is nothing new.

And lifestyle advice is simply that, advice. You can ignore it if you want.

Those who are not an "average person of average intelligence" (whatever that might be?) may benefit massively from the advice, and only the most self-centred sociopath would deny them that opportunity in order to spare themselves the trouble of hearing advice they already know.

From Gideon Foster
Monday, 22 October 2007

Jim, point taken ! I guess we just see more of it nowadays as it seems to make headline news most days. Unfortunately with the issue of obesity people just do not see it as something which may kill them tommorrow, unlike the HIV adverts you mention which i remember were quite shocking.

Tim, Do we not also have a right to freedom of expression ? denouncing people using popular phrases as "narrow thinking" could also cause offence to them, could it not?

From Jim Band
Tuesday, 30 October 2007

It's worth mentioning that the Trades has now removed the it's statement blaming our "nanny state government" from it's web page about the smoking ban. Hmmm...